I do agree with You , however, symptom supression is not primarily pharmaceutical profit related , but the result of lack of success with psychoanalysis. Although sadly. It does play into it.

Psychoanalysis, that is the Freudian approach to psychotherapy, had many limitations. Freud had a lot of insights that have turned out to be true and others that did not, but his approach to the client analyst relation was pretty stiff, distant, mental and not dynamic. A lot of interesting approaches have arisen since his death and most of them outside pyschoanalysis.

It pays to view normal emotional reactions as problems, to individualize the reactions rather than look at things at broader levels: pain related to past traumas, unhealthy extrinsic values, meaningless stressful work, disconnect from nature, social isolation and more. Big Pharma and psychiatry have a vested financial interest in making us think we should have less emotions and that emotional pain has to do with us being broken chemical machines. And they have incredible media power and have brainwashed the public to believe their BS. Now I do not view this as a simple conspiracy. Of course many of the players think they are doing good, and the paradigms that drive them are wider spread and not of their creation. But they make money off it. Lost Connections gives a good overview of what is really causing most of the problems treated by psychotropics and it gives nice references to research supporting both a fundamental critique of Pharma approaches to emotional health and supporting other ways to solve these issues.

Ok. Then call it analysis. The point made is that without being able to analyze what is bugging a patient, in terms of his awareness of it, there is no possibility of improving his position.

The putative acknowledgement of figuring it out, will have little little or no effect on affect.

It is because of this that the symptoms are uneffectedIt's not the question of the quality of the subconscious, but the quantifiable , measurable change to establish status, or, equalization between what formerly was described as the passions and reason.

Qualification of symptomalogy, , does little to move the fulcrum of the balance tonward qualifying different modes of interpreting results, so, for instance, moving the differential diagnosis from autistic to schyzotypal characteristics on the basis of some current changes of classification, will not change the dynamic that will establish more observable symptomalogy.

Even if it is to be claimed that the current methodology implicates a better concurrency with balanced relative stasis, a primary starting point can not prevail within observable symptomalogy.

Then, insight will relieve some symptoms, and these unrelieved ,will still need to be extemporeniously managed.This is the primary reason for pharm. management, and although it can be claimed that it would be too costly to extend analysis to a long term , the erroneous conclusions which insight and analysis are based on, are a function of affordability. , and may be misconstrued, if the claim made is that psychotropic drugs are merely a money making device , To deny the fact that it is society that is maladjiated to an extent , due to using drugs as a money making device, is too far a stretch, at leastndoe now...

The presumption is very great to make such an assessment, at least for now

On the other hand, a return to pure and unadulterated economically driven social system, compounded with sharp increase in the techno-regulated social system world wide, may tip the odds in favor of a drug regulated system of social control. But even then, a biotechnocal product may be one of necessity, with a predicted tramsvaluation to norms not heretofore imaginable may be only by ditiroats2 like Huxley and Nietzsche

The point is, profits are secondarily derived from necessary adjustments of social control, due to overpopulation and changing demographocs.

The profit angle is the conditional conditional aspect of the present , and probably the future world wide economic system

But upon re reading this kind of duplicates my last post, however with more detail.

After 15 years of trial and error, the psychiatric pharmaceuticals I am currently taking maintain my mental stability without side effects. The problem with a lot of psychiatric drugs is that the consumers do not take responsibility for their use of the drugs. The biggest problems with prescription meds for psychiatric usage is 1) the recipients do not take their meds as prescribed 2) MI individuals do not accurately evaluate their meds and ask for replacement options when the meds are causing side effects or are not beneficial enough. Spending years evaluating medicine after medicine is exhausting, but has to be done in order to receive the most effective prescription treatments. Perhaps most who are ill do not have the wherewithal to properly evaluate their situations due to a combination of 1) and 2) above. A large portion of MI treatment is self-responsibility which becomes self-advocacy.

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.

That's what I mean. If it hadn't been for some of the profits reinvested into pharm. research that could not have been feasible before generics cut into the profits, research and development couldn't have produced products fine tuned to tailor Your particular cocktail to suit Your exact needs.

Not that big pharm doesent price gauge, but then there is a growing worldwide industry of production of generic drugs, and they are untouchable from national patents.

Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.

The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.

Magj, I discovered this, perhaps unfinished theme, and I suppose I am the one amiss:

I'd like to add that , the three some: the surveillance of thought processes, which seems to have become the thing Nowedaya,added to behavior modification, is expected to more or less regulate that wild child, the emotions, whereas, as it has been explored elsewhere , the depth of emotional resistance shows a reboot is a lot more involved and prone to failure.

However one would gladly trade in serious cognitive dysfunction for emotional disturbances, I gather. This argument is founded on the premise, that it is a lot easier to find ways out, when the thought processes are still pretty much intact.

And on serious re-reading of Your narrative realized I'm being redundant and mundane , when You mentioned the 'return to some thing food's was meant as a patterned model

So I modify by saying , that even a nearly a totally disarrayed mind can have glimmers to this primordial ideal

Last edited by Meno_ on Thu May 17, 2018 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.

I see the point, however, the three some: the surveillance of thought processes, which seems to have become the thing Nowedaya,added to behavior modification, is expected to more or less regulate that wild child, the emotions, whereas, as it has been explored elsewhere , the depth of emotional resistance shows a reboot is a lot more involved and prone to failure.

However one would gladly trade in serious cognitive dysfunction for emotional disturbances, I gather. This argument is founded on the premise, that it is a lot easier to find ways out, when the thought processes are still pretty much intact.

I wonder of the success rate of limiting damage, through the dynamics of disordered cognitive function?

Vastly decomposed, with extremely limited insight, most of it has to be infused through lengthy analysis, and that has proven unavailable and unsuccessful.

So neurosis seems the.most likely candidate for coming out of depression, for instance.

Please refer to the previous post, to clarify and equalize the pros and the cons as sign of misalignment between neurotic and psychotic symptoms.

Its intriguing how a continuum can manifest relating tech behavior modification. at one end , and depth psychology on the other, with traditional analysis seemingly sandwiched between them.

In the whole, the cave, or the abyss, whichever way it can be visualized, the analytic usage of 'overcoming' , can, be interpreted as somewhat analogous to overcoming of almost unsolvable. , existential leaps.

How much analogy is fast becoming conflated as one another, per analysis, comes to be perceived, as putting on a grand form of defensive posture, in the form of 'rationalization'.

But is this a formal attempt to downgrade analytics toward perceptions? Or, it is not really am attempt, to intentionally sustain this state of being?

The only value of sustaining this posture , giving off mixed messages, is, that it is unknowable generally. how extended the grey area between them is, and how much of it is due to excercizes of the will, and how much it is the result of reductive effects of unknown -etiology- for lack of a better word.when the past ILP member Hobbes Choice was still here in residence. He did think this a viable area to talk about.

Psychological philosophy , or, the psychology of philosophy, or its reverse a philosophy of psychology , it's worthwhile to explore differences here, and to be able to find out whether the grey area is narrowing or widening, as relevant ,at least as relating to the value of designating effects. Effectiveness of this type of defense mechanisms determines to a certain degree. How much value is placed into intentional uses of teuomg to communicate from the hole-cave-abyss

Because , is there not a developing aversion toward treating human beings with behavior modification, cutting severely off the real meaning of states of being, by which the real meaning of a general overcoming may entail the broader spectrum ?

Without that effort, how can an intentional state be shown to be more causitve ?; to Be more, then merely an illuaionary reaction to external stimul

This is why the the effects reduce to something between the sandwich, an effected focus, becoming larger , resulting in a myopia of a convex image, one which in some rare cases, becomes a useful tool with which to ward off a severe decompensation.

This existential stasis is of absolute necessity to the very Being of some exceptional human beings, thereby, having unassailable motive to maintain it's self. As it was useless to attack Dali"s paranoia on any basis, even if, he had not been able to externalize , a hidden hope of somehow, actualizing a real reversal of the inflated image, may have subliminally played a part

Had he intentionally manifested am honest effort to do so, would have taken away the power to express the almost impossible routes that such externalizations from internal sources become possible.

Art is a form of communication which for its own sake, dispenses with the difference between intent and goal, the concept has to precede the perception of the product. The conflation is a necessary way to reverse the angst of the existential dilemma, and that is not.confined only to art, but to aesthetic concerns generally

Last edited by Meno_ on Wed May 30, 2018 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ierrellus wrote:Some employers are using EEG to determine how employees feel about their work. Is neuroscience getting a bit too personally invasive? Happening in China!

I would assume that where we are with visual surveillance will extend to brain surveillance in similar places and targets.

Visual to brain surveillancee may have limits as well , so far relating unlimited applications of technology to bio-science.has medical ethics intermittently popping up the conflict with morality . Is this not a show. that.the fabric is wearing thin , not merely of the effects of that difference, but seriously closing in on the very existence of the perception of reality per se, leading to more and more normalization. of designations of the. abnormal? With that, difference approaches to a maximum unreality, ------But is that even conceivable? I mean the effects.

Ierrellus wrote:Some employers are using EEG to determine how employees feel about their work. Is neuroscience getting a bit too personally invasive? Happening in China!

Sometimes it's misconstrued. that a sub- thema is introduced, as the previous blog should indicate; that so much is involved in. trying to figure out why policy in China may foreshadow things to come here in the US, as well as globally, and its a scary thought, in deed

Look how they'll flipped on population control eliminating the law of limiting couples to having only one child? Could the US , or any other developed Western country accept that way of thinking? Even now, reversals are taking place here , as to abortion, and other moral issues.

In California I think in a San Francisco court, a reversal has taken place on the issue of euthanasia for.terminally ill patients, eliminating the right to die by assisted suicide laws.

But down the line who knows? Maybe depressed people will not only be allowed to die, but will be .constrained to do so

Ierrellus wrote:Some employers are using EEG to determine how employees feel about their work. Is neuroscience getting a bit too personally invasive? Happening in China!

This 'trend' is indicative of the effects that entropy has on shortening the gap which exists between primary and secondary differentiation. The 60's classic 'The vanishing adolescent' shows a very early realization, of the later abridging time lap between childhood and maturity.

That China, who deals a higher ante from quality of life to the issue of Barr existence, shows what perimeters are between mortal values. (as opposed to immortal ones)

Ierrellus wrote:Some employers are using EEG to determine how employees feel about their work. Is neuroscience getting a bit too personally invasive? Happening in China!

This 'trend' is indicative of the effects that entropy has on shortening the gap which exists between primary and secondary differentiation. The 60's classic 'The vanishing adolescent' shows a very early realization, of the later abridging time lap between childhood and maturity.

That China, who deals a higher ante from quality of life to the issue of Barr existence, shows what perimeters are between mortal values. (as opposed to immortal ones)

Being beyond the time for editing- Barr existence, in the last paragraph , should read- bare existence..

Ierrellus wrote:Some employers are using EEG to determine how employees feel about their work. Is neuroscience getting a bit too personally invasive? Happening in China!

This 'trend' is indicative of the effects that entropy has on shortening the gap which exists between primary and secondary differentiation. The 60's classic 'The vanishing adolescent' shows a very early realization, of the later abridging time lap between childhood and maturity.

That China, who deals a higher ante from quality of life to the issue of Barr existence, shows what perimeters are between mortal values. (as opposed to immortal ones)

In other words borders are becoming more fuzzy , across the board

Being beyond the time for editing- Barr existence, in the last paragraph , should read- bare existence..

I read some of these posts and am completely at sea...What exactly are you talking about?

I've been seeing psychiatrists for years--I've been on psychiatric drugs for years--I'm not 'sick', I just ran out of serotonin years ago... Since I was born without a mental epidermis, I react to things other people can take, with only a hiccough or two, in their mental strides, in an apparent 'abnormal' way. Sure, it's abnormal--but what's abnormal? Isn't that simply outside the 'average?'

Most of us are 'outside the average' in some way(s)--my way is just my way.

I don't see a psychiatrist for me. I see a psychiatrist for the people I have to deal with every day.

I take drugs that help me become less "different" from the people around me as well as to be able to express myself in ways that, hopefully, those people, including my psychiatrist, will try to understand and accept. At the same time, the drugs help me to understand my reactions and, again hopefully, to enable me to 'govern' my reactions so that other people understand why I've acted the way I have--or, at least, can try to accept me as I am.

"Oh, that's just Liz...She weeps for every tree that's cut down for no reason...That's just the way she is..."

My psychiatrist gives me drugs so he can understand me, as well. How else would he be able to know me, if he weren't able to give me what I need to be 'normal?'

How else would he be able to 'listen' and, through talk therapy, even begin to try to help?

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll

lizbethrose wrote:I read some of these posts and am completely at sea...What exactly are you talking about?

I've been seeing psychiatrists for years--I've been on psychiatric drugs for years--I'm not 'sick', I just ran out of serotonin years ago... Since I was born without a mental epidermis, I react to things other people can take, with only a hiccough or two, in their mental strides, in an apparent 'abnormal' way. Sure, it's abnormal--but what's abnormal? Isn't that simply outside the 'average?'

Most of us are 'outside the average' in some way(s)--my way is just my way.

I don't see a psychiatrist for me. I see a psychiatrist for the people I have to deal with every day.

I take drugs that help me become less "different" from the people around me as well as to be able to express myself in ways that, hopefully, those people, including my psychiatrist, will try to understand and accept. At the same time, the drugs help me to understand my reactions and, again hopefully, to enable me to 'govern' my reactions so that other people understand why I've acted the way I have--or, at least, can try to accept me as I am.

"Oh, that's just Liz...She weeps for every tree that's cut down for no reason...That's just the way she is..."

My psychiatrist gives me drugs so he can understand me, as well. How else would he be able to know me, if he weren't able to give me what I need to be 'normal?'

How else would he be able to 'listen' and, through talk therapy, even begin to try to help?

I'm talking about,Liz, the new thinking on part of analysts , that cognitive therapy is the best, without eliminating drugs, if needed. And wouldn't it argue that the more drugged a person is, the less cognitive accessibility remains? A heavily drugged person will be less apt to talk, yet I believe like in alcohol, the level of cognitive function diminishes according to of drugs administered.

I'm talking about,Liz, the new thinking on part of analysts , that cognitive therapy is the best, without eliminating drugs, if needed. And wouldn't it argue that the more drugged a person is, the less cognitive accessibility remains? A heavily drugged person will be less apt to talk, yet I believe like in alcohol, the level of cognitive function diminishes according to of drugs administered.

Any drug that effects the way the mind works is called "psychotropic." This doesn't, however, mean that every psychotropic drug effects mental cognition. I'm on two 'psychotropic' drugs--one equalizes my mood and the other regulates my equalized mood. This is needed because I'm physically unable to produce serotonin sufficient to regulate and equalize my feelings--to get those feelings to manifest themselves as 'normal.'

Normality, however, is relative--it's the middle of the bell curve. I understand this. I know that my brain doesn't produce the needed amount of serotonin to keep my feelings somewhere within the middle of the bell curve, so I need drugs to help.

Research into the workings of the brain; the findings of neurologists who work with the brain and its functions; the development of drugs that can pinpoint the various areas of the brain and its functions is advancing almost daily. It's hard work, since there are billions of synapses all of which are connected and interconnected. In my opinion, this makes AI a real impossibility.

Psychiatrists, as medical doctors, use drugs, possibly because drugs are short-cuts. If a patient shows signs of harming him/herself, the isn't enough time for talk therapy. But drugs only treat symptoms.

Sometimes, treating the symptoms is all that can be done.

"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."— Lewis Carroll